By Norma Romm
In this booklet i've got focused on drawing awareness to varied conceptions of responsibility that would be dropped at undergo in judging the perform of social learn. a lot of the publication is equipped round making particular the assumptions that effect what counts as “proper” study in society, together with assumptions approximately how social inquirers may be held in charge. My concentration is on reviewing discourses round the perform of “professional” inquiry, in order to reconsidering the best way humans create expectancies for dependable social inquiry. My concentration hereon is expounded to my difficulty that the way during which judgments approximately researchers’ responsibility are made, isn't with no social outcomes for our approach to life in society. i've got approached the problems through starting with a dialogue of tenets of the placement referred to as “positivism” (so named via yes proponents), and by way of contemplating the view on responsibility that's implied by means of adherence to those tenets. in brief expressed, positivist argumentation means that researchers are required to “do technological know-how” in a way that warrants their being thought of, certainly, scientists. i exploit my dialogue of responsibility as obvious inside positivist argumentation to explicate ways that substitute positions have arisen as methods of treating responsibility concerns. via my means of evaluating a number of the positions, i'm hoping to supply a few indication of the complexity ofethical and responsibility concerns in social inquiry.
Read Online or Download Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates PDF
Similar social philosophy books
Additional resources for Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates
160). Popper rejects the claims of those who propose that because of the personal interests of social scientists in the results of their work, social science can never attain any objective information about reality. Objectivity in social — as in natural — science is dependent on the provision of mutual criticism within the community of scientists. He elucidates his position: It is a mistake to assume that the objectivity of a science depends upon the objectivity of the scientist. And it is a mistake to believe that the attitude of the natural scientist is more objective than that of the social scientist.
He argues indeed that “there is no induction: we never argue from facts to theories, unless by way of refutation or falsification” (1978, p. 86). Although what is called induction may be useful as a way of generating hypotheses (by considering a number of observations and speculating about whether more general statements might help to explain them), it has no other scientific importance. The practice of science proper, according to Popper, requires the testing of hypotheses via the process of deduction.
4 Positioning Non-foundationalism Argumentation in Relation to Critical Theoretical Hammersley refers explicitly to what he calls “critical research” as an alternative to “traditional research” (1995, p. 30). He refers to Connerton’s (1976) indication that one of the claims of critical researchers is that, unlike traditional researchers, they “incorporate in their work an analysis of their own social function” (Hammersley, 1995, p. 30). This involves accounting for inquiry processes in terms of this function, and directing the inquiry consciously toward furthering “emancipatory goals” (1995, p.
Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates by Norma Romm